Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 08 March 2013 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC1921F8745 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 07:26:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.204
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pLYf29x32zP5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 07:26:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC29021F8700 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 07:26:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.159] (99-152-144-32.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.144.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r28FQsE2016262 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Mar 2013 09:26:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
References: <CA+9kkMAtTOAw4hy5yRhdgW5=Ca9a9LjX9paZrR=+ABJGnJAU=w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBDyN75PncyA1euiZ-9rr=parAGnM43oAL0JQHykxnJ+3YWww@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN75PncyA1euiZ-9rr=parAGnM43oAL0JQHykxnJ+3YWww@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6A6C9D56-D182-43BB-94F8-35A0A225639C@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10A403)
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:26:55 -0600
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.144.32 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Checkpointing decisions in RTCWEB
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:26:59 -0000

On Mar 8, 2013, at 8:49, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:

> We also have a number of situations in IETF where we have been
> determined to complete something based upon a decision that was made
> and we have successfully completed protocol documents in these cases.
> However, we have a number of these cases where those documents just
> get put on a shelf.

I'm not sure which spec you're trying to warn us about never being deployed. The RTCWEB specification, for all its current holes, already has independent interoperable implementations in the field. 

/a